The Physics of 911

Why would NIST lie about:

the molten/vaporized steel, iron and other metals?

the many explosions heard, videoed and reported by numerous people?

WTC7 free fall?

the molten steel/iron pouring out of WTC2 minutes before the collapse?

the above mentioned molten steel/iron, calling it aluminum when they were proven wrong, when it was shown it could not be molten aluminum?

their false claim RE: molten aluminum and keep that false claim in their FAQs to this day?

the manner of collapse for WTC7, maintaining the ludicrous notion that one column's failure caused a total, free fall, completely symmetrical
collapse of WTC7?

that same collapse, showing a computer simulation graphic of their "scientific" result for the collapse of WTC7 that doesn't remotely match the reality seen in numerous videos from numerous angles?

[ADD YOUR OWN NIST LIES]

That is not true. Both towers were on fire, not just one, and none of the towers got hit at its "upper block". Both fires were situated BELOW many floors (with a lot of non-flammable material in them) prior to collapse. It is only logical that the upper floors -- located above the fires before the collapse -- would end up as debris located on top of the fires after the collapse.

The molten metal observed by some (apparently) at ground zero could very well have been produced post collapse. The vaporized lead was produced by the impact of the planes. There's no need for your termites to explain any of this. So why go for a complicated theory when a simple one can account for the data?

I guess there's such a thing as conspiracy porn.

If you're confident of this claim, share some evidence.

That's how discussions go forward.

Which data would you be referencing?


There's no "apparently" about it . Heat signatures were recorded by NASA from satellites quite some distance from Earth. These heat signatures lingered for weeks after the demolition of the structures, despite the efforts of firefighters flooding the sites with H2O.

Now you are deliberately playing dumb. I tell you that the upper block of the North Tower was where the fire was, and you tell me that that's not true. And the basis for your claim that it is not true is that both Towers were on fire, and not just one.

Yeah, and it's only logical that that particular part of the debris would end up on top of the ninety plus floors of debris below it, not down in the basement melting girders.

That is not logical at all. Supposedly, in defiance of the laws of physics, this much smaller block of floors was what "pulverized" the much more massive in volume and build strength lower sections into dust.

Of course there were scientific theories, the pancake theory is one, that the news media dutifully trotted out to a highly gullible public. But the "scientific paper" that NIST finally settled on, the "scientific" paper that ultimately provided the entire fiction for NIST and the US official conspiracy theory, was one first published on September 13, 2001!!!!!

That's pretty "scientific" isn't it, farmerman?

Conservation of momentum says not a chance. NIST did no study on this, they stopped at collapse initiation, because they knew full well that it was impossible according to long established Newtonian principles.

Why was NIST able to do a "full" study of WTC7 . Well, not actually a full study at all. Their silly computer simulation video of the collapse didn't match REALITY, the actual collapse of WTC7 recorded in many live videos.

That's also why NIST lied about no free fall for WTC7, then after it was pointed out, by a high school physics teacher, to all these marvelous "scientists", with the resources of the US government behind them, that free fall was an easily measurable thing, they changed their minds, but in a totally unscientific, highly deceptive fashion, in other words, the totally typical NIST fashion.

Watch these NIST scientists stumble and fumble around with what should have been easily described science when they were back in high school. The man who denied molten steel is especially telling. His body language and demeanor describe a man who is totally uncomfortable with his lies, not to mention his own stunning incompetence.

Watch it all but to see a really squirming John Gross, start at 5:42.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) by David Chandler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY

Indeed, the fire was ALSO in the middle of the south tower. That however was only part of my refutation. The other part was that in the north tower, the fire was located below several floors, and certainly not "in the upper block" whatever that means.


So what? The fire spread lower and lower through the pile of debris filled with paper and plastic, that's all... You are aware that fires can spread, aren't you?

Calm down. My name is Olivier. I am not Farmerman, although I take your confusing us as a compliment.

I know WHY you lie.

Really? You mean to tell me that all this time you didn't know what I've been referring to when I've been talking about the upper and lower block, and you never bothered to ask for clarification? I don't believe you. The context in which I've used the terms left nothing to the imagination.

And now you're trying to convince me that you honestly believe that after the collapse, the fires on the rubble pile spread lower and lower through all the steel and crushed cement floors, and finally made it down into the basement where it created molten metal and melted girders. I don't believe you, and I don't think you do, either.

Oh hey, perhaps now we can move on to why, after a "certain point", the core structure offered no resistance to speak of, and how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the lateral ejections as seen in photos and videos of the collapse still allowed for enough reserve energy to allow for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance.

That portion was specifically addressed to farmerman.

The rest, which you can't address was to you.

The question is, why did NIST tell all these lies.

Why are you, seemingly the junior scientist to farmerman, avoiding these lies?

I don't believe any of it. You have no clue who said what anyway.

You often address absent members like that?

When the situation warrants it. You mean "fleeing members".

How typically unscientific of you, Olivier.

Care to pick one and find out?

You pick one.

Au contraire, mon ami.

The Uof A-F study found that there is no justification at all for NIST's notion that WTC7 came down as a result of fire.

"Column 79 did not buckle under gravity loading"

'... we're looking at progressive collapses, what we found is quite interesting, but no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have symmetrical behavior, it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure is not built perfectly, for god's sake, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to come straight down.

Why do you think farmerman the scientist fled, Olivier? He took great pains to ensure we all understood what a marvel he was as a scientist.